The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Supplement to M ay, 1952, Issue MONTHLY CONTENTS O F SUPPLEMENT Areas leading in: Keview Population................................... 10 Manufacturing............................ 12 Agricultural Income 16 Retail S a l e s ............................ 17 Finance.......................................... 18 Conclusions.......................................... 20 FINANCE • INDUSTRY • AGRICULTURE • TRADE FO U R TH FE D ER A L R E S E R V E D I S T RI CT Vol. 34— No. 5 Supplem ent Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Ohio Cross Sections (V) Summary for the State . . . 21 economic areas of Ohio, located in four sections of the state, have been analyzed in previ ous issues; this article summarizes the findings. For names of the areas and counties included, see Table III (insert in this issue) or March 1952 issue. NOV. *5! ISSU E Cleveland 1, Ohio Monthly Business Review Page 10 M ay 1, 1952 Areas Leading in POPULATION DENSITY OF POPULATION-1 9 5 0 Five Highest Ranking Areas Area Cleveland ................................. Cincinnati ............................... Toledo ....................................... Akron ....................................... Columbus ................................. Density 2,130 per square mile 1,749 per square mile 1,153 per square mile 993 per square mile 936 per square mile Of the 21 economic areas in Ohio previously described in this series, the five areas which lead in density of population according to the latest census are: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, and Co lumbus, in the order named. (See accompanying chart.) The areas refer to state economic areas em bracing one or more counties in each case, and the measure used is that of population per square mile. Only one of the five areas leading in population den sity happens to include more than one county; that is the Cleveland area comprising Cuyahoga and Lake counties. (See previous articles, and also definition of areas as shown in insert.) Ranking sixth in density of population (not indi cated on the map) is the Dayton economic area which includes the two counties of Montgomery and Greene. Among the 8 non-metropolitan areas of the state, the one ranking highest in density of population is the Ashtabula-to-East Liverpool area which includes the four counties of Ashtabula, Columbiana, Geauga and Portage, and which ranks as 13th out of the state’s 21 economic areas with respect to density of GROWTH IN DENSITY OF POPULATION Five Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1940-50 Pop. Area Increase Dayton ..................................................................... 38% Lorain-Elyria .......................................................... 32% Columbus ................................................................ 30% Hamilton-Middletown ....................................... 22% Canton ..................................................................... 22% population. Other areas range downward to the least densely populated which is the Portsmouth-M arietta area, comprising 12 counties in the southeast portion of the state. Growth of The percentage change in density of Population population between the Census of 1940 and that of 1950 gives a measure of Editor’s Note: This article is the final in a series of five which analyze Ohio’s economic activity in terms of a concept of “state economic areas”. Each of the first four articles, appearing in pre vious issues as listed on the cover page of this issue, dealt with a group of economic areas located in one of the four general sections of the state. The purposes of this final article are: (a) to summarize the previous findings for the state as a whole, and (b) to show for the various areas some measures of growth over a decade period—a consideration which was omitted from the previous articles because of space limitations. Boundaries of the economic areas (with exceptions noted in pre vious articles) are as shown in State Economic Areas, by Donald J. Bogue, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1951. Up to the present, the Bureau of the Census has designated the “non-metropolitan” areas by numbers only, pending the final determination of official names. Provisional and unofficial names of the non-metropolitan areas have been used for convenience through out these five articles. Monthly Business Review M ay 1, 1952 growth in the ten-year period. (See the second of the accompanying charts.) The five economic areas which lead in this measure of population growth are in order: Dayton, Lorain-Elyria, Columbus, Hamilton-Middletown, and Canton. It will be noticed that, with the exception of Columbus, the list of areas leading in population growth is entirely different from the list of those leading in population density today. Stated otherwise, it means that Columbus is the only one of the five most densely populated areas which has shown an outstandingly high rate of growth over the past decade.(1) All but two of the 21 economic areas of the state registered some gain in population (and hence in population density) between 1941 and 1950. The two areas which declined in population are the Portsmouth-Marietta area (12 counties) and the Steubenville area (2 counties) in each of which the population declined by 4% over the ten-year in terval. Other Measures The above findings, together with of Population the accompanying charts, and Table II, page 14, summarize the population information on an economic area basis, corresponding in coverage with the related informa tion on manufacturing, agriculture, trade and finance Page 1 1 developed elsewhere in this and the preceding articles of the series. There are, however, other ways in which the lead ing population centers of the state may be identified, as of 1950. While Cleveland and Cincinnati retain first and second place respectively in any of these current measures, the ranking below second place differs according to the measure used. (See Table I.) The absolute populations of Ohio’s 21 economic areas, for example, may be ranked without reference to the square miles of area included. On such a basis, the Columbus and Dayton areas score third and fourth, respectively, while Toledo is not in cluded within the first seven economic areas.(2) (See column 1 of Table I.) Ranking fifth in abso lute population is the Zanesville-Newark area com prising 11 counties; ranking sixth is the Lima-Marion area also embracing 11 counties; ranking seventh is the Youngstown area, which includes the two Ohio counties of Mahoning and Trumbull. Still another way of ranking population centers is the easily understood and conventional practice of listing cities in order of population contained within the corporate city limits. (See column 3 of Table I.) On this basis, the seven leading cities of the state are: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, TABLE I CURRENT RANKING OF OHIO’S LEADING POPULATION CENTERS According to Four Alternative Measures (All Based on 1950 Census of Population) RANK 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th (1) (2) (3) (4) Population of state economic area Population PER SQ,. MI. of state economic area (As charted) Cleveland........... .(2,130) Cincinnati.......... .(1,749) Toledo................. .(1,153) Akron................. ...(993) Population of corporate city Population of “urbanized area” Cleveland........ Cleveland.............. . .(1,466,000) Cincinnati. . . . Cincinnati............. . . . . (724,000) Columbus........ Columbus............. . . .(503,000) Toledo............. Dayton.................. .. .(457,333) ZanesvilleNewark area ... . . ..(456,770) Columbus.......... ...(936) Akron.............. Lima-Marion area . .. . (434,000) Dayton............... ...(519) Dayton............ Youngstown.......... (417,000) Canton............... (494) Youngstown... (915,000) (504,000) (376,000) (304,000) Cleveland........ (1,384,000) Cincinnati. . . . . (669,000) Columbus........ . (438,000) Akron.............. . (367,000) (275,000) Toledo............. . (364,000) (244,000) Dayton............ . (347,000) (168,000) Youngstown, (298,000) Note: Population figures of columns (1), (3), and (4) are rounded to nearest thousand except in cases where detail is necessary for ranking. (1) For statistical reasons it may, perhaps, be expected that smaller centers will show larger percentage gains in a given period. In absolute numbers, or in numbers of people per square mile, however, the Cleveland area’s increase of population outstripped all others. (2) The reason why population per square mile rather than absolute population has been stressed in this series is as follows: The designation of state economic areas by the Bureau of the Census involves a consolidation of a number of non-metropolitan or rural counties in order to achieve population totals more nearly comparable with the densely populated metropolitan areas. Hence the ranking of state economic areas in terms of absolute population contains a large factor of artificiality. Monthly Business Review Page 12 Akron, Dayton and Youngstown. Finally, there is a relatively new census measure of population termed “urbanized areas”. These areas cut across county lines, and include the densely pop ulated fringes of leading cities.(3) The seven leading “urbanized areas” of Ohio, as shown in column 4 of Table I, are: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, M ay 1, 1952 Akron, Toledo, Dayton and Youngstown. It will be seen that the order is the same as that of the corpo rate cities except that Akron and Toledo take fourth and fifth places respectively, thus reversing their order in the previous case. Akron’s high rank in this measure is based in part on the large adjoining pop ulations of Cuyahoga Falls and Barberton. Areas Leading in MANUFACTURING NUMBER OF PRODUCTION WORKERS Five Highest Ranking Areas, 1947 No. of Production Area Workers Cleveland .......................................................... 219,000 Cincinnati .......................................................... 101,000 Dayton ................................................................ 79,000 Youngstown ...................................................... 77,000 Akron .................................................................. 75,000 Among the 21 economic areas of the state, the five areas which lead in number of production workers employed in manufacturing are: Cleveland, Cincin nati, Dayton, Youngstown and Akron. (See accom panying chart and Table II.) This ranking is based on the 1947 Census of Manufactures, the latest avail able.(4) The Dayton, Youngstown and Akron figures are quite close together. Sixth, seventh and eighth places in respect to (3) The usefulness of the “urbanized area” type of measure is limited by the fact that it is not available on a comparable basis for years prior to 1950, and also by the fact that it has no applica bility to the non-metropolitan areas under consideration here. GROWTH IN NUMBER OF PRODUCTION WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING Five Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1939-47 Increase in Area Production Workers Ironton ................................................................... 123% Dayton ................................................................... 98% Ashtabula-E. Liverpool ..................................... 90% Akron ..................................................................... 88% Toledo ..................................................................... 86% number of production workers in 1947 are held by Toledo, Canton, and Columbus areas, respectively. (This is not shown on the chart. See Table II.) Growth in Production Workers The growth in number of production workers employed in manufacturing in the various areas, as measured by per centage change from the Census of (4) Previous articles of this series showed an item called “percent age of population employed in manufacturing, 1950”, computed from state sources. Data for the latter, however, are unavailable on a comparable basis for a ten-year-ago period; hence that measure is not used in this summary article which includes measures of growth. M ay 1, 1952 Monthly Business Review VALUE OF MANUFACTURING Five Highest Ranking Areas, 1947 Area Value Added Cleveland ............................................. $1,546,000,000 Cincinnati ............................................. 732,000,000 Dayton .................................................... 496,000,000 Akron ...................................................... 460,000,000 Youngstown ......................................... 446,000,000 Manufactures of 1939 to that of 1947, is largest for the following areas: Ironton, Dayton, Ashtabula-toEast Liverpool, Akron and Toledo. (See chart.) Percentage gains among these leading five range from 123% for Ironton to 86% for Toledo. The outstanding gain for Ironton is associated with devel opment of the chemical industry in that area. It may be noted that Dayton and Akron are the only two areas of the state included both among the five currently leading and the five scoring the largest percentage increases in number of production workers. ^he ^ve lading areas with respect to the value of manufacturing, ac cording to the Census of 1947, are: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron and Youngs town. The value of manufacturing refers to the Census concept “value added by manufacture” which Value of Manufacturing Page 13 GROWTH IN VALUE OF MANUFACTURING Five Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1939 to 1947 1939-47 Growth in Area Value Added Ironton ................................................................... 550% Sandusky-Mansfield ............................................ 300% Ashtabula-E. Liverpool ..................................... 281% Lima-Marion ........................................................ 276% Toledo ..................................................................... 251% excludes the value of raw materials entering into the respective products. When attention is shifted to the growth in the value of manufacturing over a period of nearly a decade, it appears that not a single area among those now leading is included in the list of five areas show ing the largest growth. Thus, the five highest rank ing areas with respect to percentage gain in value of manufacturing from 1939 to 1947 are: Ironton, Sandusky-Mansfield (7 counties), Ashtabula-to-East Liverpool (4 counties), Lima-Marion (11 counties), and Toledo. Percentage gains range from 550% for Ironton to 251% for Toledo. The large gain for Ironton, as mentioned previously in connection with number of production workers, is associated with the chemical industry. If allowance were made for the loss in the value of the dollar as measured by the wholesale price index, these percentage gains would be reduced to 253% for Ironton (first place) and to 90% for Toledo (fifth place). Monthly Business Review Page 14 TAB LE II SUMMARY TABLE OF BASIC ECONOMIC I :ACTS FOR OHIO’S 21 ECONOMIC AREAS (4) (5) (2) (3) ( 1) DENSITY OF POPULATION AREA Monthly Business Review M ay 1, 1952 M ay 1, 1952 VALUE OF MANUFACTURING AGRICULTURAL INCOME PER ACRE* RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA Page 15 (6) (7) DEMAND DEPOSITS (YEAR END) PER CAPITA “SAVINGS ACCOUNTS” (YEAR END) NO. OF PRODUCTION WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING Rank % Gain Thous. 1947 ’39-’47 1947 Mil. $ 1947 Rank 1947 % Gain $ 1950 Rank 1950 % Gain $ 1948 Rank 1948 % Gain ’39-’48 Mil. $ 1950 Rank 1950 % Gain ’41-’50 $ 1950 Rank 1950 % Gain Per Sq. Mile ’50 Rank 1950 % Gain NORTHWEST 1. Bryan-to-Fremont................... 2. Lima-M arion........................... A. Toledo........................................ 71 88 1,153 19 16 3 8 10 15 22 42 57 15 9 6 78 82 86 143.7 257.9 390.0 12 9 6 236 276 251 52.58 50.20 1 3 97 107 835 933 1,120 14 9 1 204 202 168 91.3 169.2 260.1 13 6 4 249 224 134 502 582 521 11 5 9 185 142 141 SOUTHWEST Piqua-Delaware....................... Chillicothe-Hillsboro.............. Dayton....................................... Hamilton-Middletown........... Cincinnati................................. Springfield................................ 72 60 519 313 1,749 278 18 20 6 9 2 11 12 7 38 22 16 17 20 6 79 23 101 16 16 20 3 14 2 18 63 18 98 55 51 52 126.1 27.8 496.4 137.4 732.2 113.2 16 21 3 13 2 17 221 119 201 198 191 136 51.29 29.53 2 6 115 139 834 638 977 902 1,044 945 15 19 6 11 2 8 204 192 151 172 136 170 140.8 50.6 203.9 66.7 631.6 33.5 10 17 5 16 2 20 220 222 186 216 126 155 349 251 399 509 744 562 18 20 17 10 2 6 98 62 58 79 56 89 NORTHEAST 4. Sandusky-Mansfield............... 5. Ashtabula-East Liverpool.... E. Cleveland.................................. F. Akron......................................... G. Canton....................................... H. Youngstown.............................. N. Lorain-Elyria............................ 109 125 2,130 993 494 401 299 14 13 1 4 7 8 10 19 19 16 21 22 13 32 38 24 219 75 48 77 24 11 12 1 5 7 4 13 74 90 69 88 65 48 66 257.5 136.9 1,546.1 [460.3 280.2 [445.8 131.6 10 14 1 4 7 5 15 300 281 206 177 160 166 132 44.30 41.07 4 5 110 105 906 807 1,040 983 946 884 876 10 16 3 5 7 12 13 171 155 152 154 156 154 166 129.9 81.2 1,345.8 166.5 112.2 155.3 36.7 11 14 1 7 12 8 19 204 192 149 219 177 187 217 620 482 864 454 617 496 551 3 14 1 16 4 12 7 96 105 117 163 98 108 138 CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST 6. Zanesville-Newark.................. 8. Portsmouth-Marietta............. B. Columbus.................................. J. Steubenville............................... L. Iron ton....................................... 82 59 936 195 108 17 21 5 12 15 7 —4 30 —4 5 40 18 42 13 4 10 17 8 19 21 41 46 67 5 123 212.1 80.2 277.8 72.7 30.0 11 18 8 19 21 196 207 209 123 550 27.97 16.83 7 8 108 126 753 622 1,006 712 576 17 20 4 18 21 181 195 126 159 230 141.0 73.4 295.1 44.2 5.3 9 15 3 18 21 207 199 164 184 135 458 264 491 537 201 15 19 13 8 21 117 98 70 123 120 OHIO TO TAL...................... U. S. TO TAL........................ 193 51 988 11,916 66 53 6,359 74,426 200 204 41.10 25.39 .. 108 141 928 866 ,, •• 15 15 163 171 4,234 90,999 •• 164 141 571 458 3. 7. C. D. K. M. ’40-’50 Sources: (1) Census of Population, 1950 and 1940. (2) Census of Manufactures, 1947 and 1939. (3) Census of Manufactures 1947 and 1939; “value of manufacturing” refers to value added to product (i.e. excluding value of raw materials). (4) Ohio State University and Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station; refers to gross cash income excluding government payments. ’39-’4 7 ’41-’50 •• * Ranked for 8 non-metropolitan areas, only. (5) Census of Business, 1948 and 1939. (6) Ohio Department of Commerce, Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, and Federal Reserve System; refers to time deposits of individuals, partnerships and corporations at commercial banks plus deposits at Ohio’s few mutual savings banks, plus deposits and value of withdraw able shares of savings and loan associations (both state and federal-chartered). ’41-’50 103 96 Monthly Business Review Page 16 M ay 1, 1952 Areas Leading in AGRICULTURAL INCOME In comparing the areas of the state with respect to agricultural income, only the 8 non-metropolitan areas are considered here, in spite of the fact that important agricultural enterprise is carried on also in many of the counties included within the 13 met ropolitan areas of the state. Among the 8 non metropolitan areas, the three which led in agricultural income per acre in 1950 were: Bryan-to-Fremont area, Piqua-Delaware, and Lima-Marion. (See chart.) The measure refers to gross cash income from sale of agricultural products per acre of farmland, with government subsidy payments excluded. The income-per-acre averages for the three lead ing areas range from $52.58 for Bryan-to-Fremont to $50.20 for Lima-Marion. The averages for the three leading areas are thus quite close together, with the fourth ranking area scoring considerably lower. Fourth place is held by the Sandusky-Mansfield area with a 1950 income of $44.30 per acre. GROWTH IN AGRICULTURAL INCOME PER ACRE Three Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1941-1950 (Out of 8 Non-metropolitan Areas) CASH INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE, PER ACRE Three Highest Ranking Areas, 1950 (Out of 8 Non-metropolitan Areas) 1941-50 Rise in Cash Area Income Per Acre Chillicothe-Hillsboro .................... 139% (to $29.53) Portsmouth-Marietta .................... 126% (to $16.83) Piqua-Delaware ............................... 115% (to $51.29) Although the ranking of the 8 nonmetropolitan areas with respect to agricultural income appears to change very little from year to year, there are noticeable differences in the rates of gain over a ten-year interval. Thus, the three non-metropolitan areas which show the largest percentage gains in agricultural income per acre from 1941 to 1950 are: Chillicothe-Hillsboro area, Portsmouth-Marietta and Piqua-Delaware. (See chart.) The percentage gains of these three areas range from 139% for Chillicothe-Hillsboro to 115% for Piqua-Delaware. Some of these large percentage gains are registered from a relatively low base; for example, the 126% gain for the Portsmouth-Marietta area involves a rise from $7.44 per acre to $16.83 per acre, whereas the rise of 115% for Piqua-Dela ware represents a rise from $23.82 to $51.29. The Piqua-Delaware area is the only one which is included both among the first three in current in come per acre and the first three in respect to growth over a decade. Growth in Agricultural Income Cash Income Area Per Acre Bryan-Fremont .................................................... $52.58 Piqua-Delaware ................................................. 51.29 Lima-Marion ...................................................... 50.20 M ay 1, 1952 Monthly Business Review Page 17 Areas Leading in RETAIL SALES Of the 21 economic areas of Ohio, the five areas which show the largest retail sales per capita, accord ing to the Census of Business of 1948 are: Toledo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron. (See chart.) This measure includes sales of all types of retail establishments which report to the Census, in cluding automobile dealers as well as food stores, department stores, retailers of building materials, etc. The population data used for determining per-capita sales are drawn from the Census of Population of 1950.<5) The per-capita sales, computed in this way, vary among the leading five areas from $1,120 per capita for Toledo to $983 for Akron. Sixth and seventh place (not shown on the chart) are held respectively by Dayton with $977 per capita and Canton with $946 per capita. Growth in The increase in retail sales per capita Retail Sales from 1939 to 1948 appears to be particularly marked among the non metropolitan areas of the state, especially in several GROWTH IN RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA Four Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1937 to 1948 RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA Five Highest Ranking Areas, 1948 1937-48 Rise in Retail Area Trade (Per Capita) Ironton .................................................. 230% (to $576) Bryan-Fremont ................................... 204% (to $835) Piqua-Delaware ................................. 204% (to $834) Lima-Marion ....................................... 202% (to $933) Retail Sales Area Per Capita Toledo .................................................................. $1,120 Cincinnati ............................................................ 1,044 Cleveland ............................................................ 1,040 Columbus ............................................................ 1,006 Akron .................................................................... 983 of the western areas. (See chart.) Thus, the four leading areas with respect to percentage gain in retail sales per capita are: Ironton area, Bryan-to-Fremont, Piqua-Delaware, and Lima-Marion. Fifth, sixth and seventh places respectively (not shown on the chart) are held by Portsmouth-Marietta, Chillicothe-Hillsboro and Zanesville-Newark. It is interesting that not a single area of the state appears both on the list of five highest ranking areas with respect to 1948 sales and five highest ranking areas in rate of growth from 1939 to 1948. How ever, the fact that the Toledo area ranks first on the current list, together with the fact that the adjoining Bryan-to-Fremont area ranks second on the list of areas showing the largest growth, is suggestive of outstanding strength in retailing in the northwest corner of the state. (5) Population figures on a county basis for 1948 are unavailable. The inaccuracy in per-capita figures attributable to the use of 1950 population as applied to 1948 sales might be appreciable on an absolute dollar basis. The relative positions of the areas, how ever, would be affected little if at all. Monthly Business Review Page 18 M ay 1, 1952 Areas Leading in FINANCE DEMAND DEPOSITS OF COMMERCIAL BANKS Five Highest Ranking Areas, Dec. 31, 1950 Demand Deposits Area (End of 1950) Cleveland ............................................. $1,346,000,000 Cincinnati ............................................. 632,000,000 Columbus ............................................. 295,000,000 Toledo .................................................... 260,000,000 Dayton .................................................... 204,000,000 Of the 21 economic areas of the state, the five areas which reported the largest volume of demand de posits of commercial banks, as of December 31, 1950, are: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo and Dayton.(6) (See chart.) Cleveland and Cincinnati lead by considerable margins. The sixth and seventh ranking areas (not shown on the chart) are LimaMarion and Akron, respectively. The demand deposits shown in this measure are mainly the accounts of business firms in the various areas, although some portion of the demand deposits (6) Banking statistics for more recent periods are, of course, available. The advantage of using the year-end 1950 figures both for de mand deposits and for savings accounts is the preserving of con tinuity with the corresponding items appearing earlier in this series of articles, prepared prior to the availability of year-end figures for 1951. GROWTH IN DEMAND DEPOSITS Five Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1941 to 1950 (Year Ends) Growth of Demand Area Deposits (1941-50) Bryan-Fremont .................................................... 249% Lima-Marion ........................................................ 224% Chillicothe-Hillsboro ......................................... 222% Piqua-Delaware .................................................... 220% Akron ..................................................................... 219% also represents current funds and savings of individ uals. Interbank and government deposits are ex cluded from the measure. The five areas which show the largest percentage gain in de mand deposits of commercial banks between 1941 and 1950 (year-ends) are: Bryan-to-Fremont, Lima-Marion, Chillicothe - Hills boro, Piqua-Delaware, and Akron. (See chart.) This list of growth leaders is entirely different from the list of areas which currently lead in demand deposits. The figures for the percentage gains scored by the growth leaders, however, are quite close to gether. Growth in Demand Deposits M ay 1, 1952 Monthly Business Review The concept of “savings accounts” used in this series of articles is a special meas ure constructed as follows: a summation is made of the dollar volume of time deposits at commercial and mutual savings banks, and the dollar value of deposits and withdrawable shares of savings and loan associations. (The time deposits at commer cial banks do not include any governmental deposits.) The entire sum for each area is divided by the popu lation of the area to yield a measure called “savings accounts” per capita. Such a measure obviously fails to include all forms of savings, but it does comprise a practical measure of some of the most important forms of savings of individuals. The per-capita “savings accounts”, so measured, were largest at the end of 1950 in the following five areas: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Sandusky-Mansfield, Canton, and Lima-Marion. The amounts for these leading areas range from $864 for Cleveland to $582 for Lima-Marion. (It will be noted that if the measurement were taken in total dollar volume, rather than in per-capita amounts, Cleveland’s mar gin of lead would be much greater.) Sixth and Savings Accounts “SAVINGS ACCOUNTS” PER CAPITA Five Highest Ranking Areas, Dec. 31, 1950 Savings Accounts Area Per Capita Cleveland ................................................................ $864 Cincinnati ................................................................ 744 Sandusky-Mansfield ............................................. 620 Canton .................................................................... 617 Lima-Marion .......................................................... 582 Page 19 seventh places in this measure of per-capita savings are occupied by Springfield and Lorain-Elyria, respectively. in If the same measure of savings as previously described is taken in terms of relative percentage gains from 1941 to 1950 (year-ends), the five leading areas with respect to growth in savings are: Bryan-to-Fremont, Akron, Lima-Marion, Toledo, and Lorain-Elyria. One area of this list, Lima-Marion, also appears on the pre ceding list of the five areas whose “savings accounts” per capita are largest on a current basis. The percentage gains in per-capita savings for the five leading areas just mentioned range from 185% for the Bryan-to-Fremont area to 138% for Lorain-Elyria. “Deflated” for changes in the con sumer price index over the nine-year interval, such percentage gains drop to 76% and 47%, respectively. (All but one of the 21 areas of the state showed some gain in per-capita “savings” after allowance for change in the dollar.) Growth Savings GROWTH IN “SAVINGS ACCOUNTS” PER CAPITA Five Highest Ranking Areas in Rate of Growth from 1941 to 1950 (Year Ends) Growth in Savings Accounts Area Per Capita (1941-1950) Bryan-Fremont .................................................... 185% Akron ......................................................................163% Lima-Marion .........................................................142% Toledo .......................................................................141% Lorain-Elyria ...................................................... 138% Page 20 Monthly Business Review M ay 1, 1952 CONCLUSIONS As a summary of a summary, a few final observa tions may be made. There is some consistency, as well as much variety, in the rankings of the various Ohio areas with respect to the selected items here discussed. If agricultural income is excluded, and if attention is paid to the measures of population, manufacturing, trade and finance, it appears that the areas of greatest economic strength at the present time tend to lie roughly along the northeast-to-southwest diagonal of the state. The most important exception to this generalization lies in the strong showing made by the Toledo area, located well to the northwest of the diagonal. The strength of the northeast-to-southwest axis is, of course, not a new phenomenon. Much of Ohio’s industrial history is bound up with it. A significant question, which can only be partly ans wered here, is whether or not the margin of lead enjoyed by such areas is being narrowed by time and events. Strength on the Diagonal A review of the series of “growth” charts previously described, as well as the data of Table II, indicates that certain areas of the state appear rather frequent ly in the list of five leading areas with respect to growth in the various indicators of population, manu facturing, trade and finance. For example, the Lima-Marion, Bryan-to-Fremont, and Toledo areas appear with outstanding frequency on the lists of areas showing the largest growth in the various meas ures over a decade period. These three areas geo graphically constitute the northwest section of the state. It seems, therefore, that the northwestern part of the state tends to be outstanding in the measures of economic growth selected here. Outside of the northwest, the only state economic areas which show a broadly comparable frequency of scoring in the growth lists are Ironton and Akron. The remaining 16 economic areas of the state are represented, if at all, with less frequency on the lists of areas leading in growth, although appearances on more than one list occur in the cases of Dayton and Piqua-Delaware (in the southwest) as well as LorainElyria and Ashtabula-to-East Liverpool (in the north east). In appraising the significance of the above find Growth in the Northwest ings it should be emphasized that the generalizations apply only to the measures used here — measures which were selected both for their broad significance and for their practicality of computation. Other measures might point to other areas as leaders in growth. There is no such thing as a “fastest growing area” in general. With respect to agriculture, the single measure which has been used here (agricultural income per acre of farmland) points definitely toward the western half of the state as being currently the strongest, and to the southern half (both southeast and southwest) as being the locus of the largest relative gains over the past decade. The outstanding agricultural prosperity of the west ern part of the state is based mainly on its corn-hog farming, as the eastern terminus of the nation’s “corn belt”. However, the agriculture of the eastern half of the state, whch revolves particularly around dairy ing enterprise, is also highly lucrative by almost any standard of comparison. The average income per acre for the entire state of Ohio, for example, was 62% above the national average in 1950. Even more important, perhaps, is the fact that seven out of the eight non-metropolitan areas of Ohio had an income per acre in 1950 in excess of the national average. (See Table II.) Agricultural Income While attention in this series of articles has been focused mainly on the parts of the state rather than the state as a whole, the showing of Ohio in comparison with the national average may be seen for all the items considered by referring to the last two rows of Table II. For the per-capita items shown in the table, Ohio’s current score is higher than the national average. With respect to the growth question, however, the picture is mixed. Ohio’s rate of ten-year growth ex ceeds the national average in respect to the number of production workers employed in manufacturing, demand deposits of commercial banks, and per capita “savings accounts”. The Ohio rate of gain falls below the national average with respect to growth in value of manufacturing, and rise in agricultural income per acre. In population growth, the state’s rate of increase is the same as the national average for the period covered. Ohio and U. S. A.
@FedFRASER